Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed fr
aye hillis aye. >> would? no commissioner president fong. >> so moved that commissioner passes four to three with commissioners moore, sag guya and voting against. >> i heard there was cp to allow ground floor reds terrible mr. teeing is that something that you were putting before us here,. >> sure and it's something that i'm hypothecate putting before you as a package because of the affordable housing trust fund created a scenario where we could not increase affordable housing requirements lieu a new rezonings and legislation and through certain exemptions one being that the site was getting 20% bump in gross developable area the problem with ct and the regional commercial district is while they permanent housing on every floor, on the ground floor of large project, they restrict it and they don't permit it and so, to meet that 20% criteria in the charter, we would need to remove that planning prohibition of residential uses in the district on large sites on the ground floor and then in the other piece to that puzzle was also amendment aiming the zoning map resolution to r
and state your name for the record. at this time i will call roll. >> commissioner fong. >> here. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will wil
. >>> no. >> hillis yes. >> commissioner sugayaa eye, commissioner fong no. >> that move passes for to three with commissioners antonini, hillis and fong voting against. so i'm want to go make a motion for 113. commissioner sugayaa. >> yeah, i would like to include some language that -- but i do not want to support the language that says we support continued evaluation and the one that is supported by staff and i'm perfectally willing to acknowledge that the process is under way and that we recognize that this process is under way. >>> second. >> commissioner antonini. >>> i would prefer staff language and i think if i'm not missustain, it was objective one 1.5 is that correct? language that makes it quite clear that there is a process already gone gun and that is one that we should be focusing on and while we are improving the shrinkage or down zoning of that area in this plan that we have our eyes forward to that and it doesn't say it's a preferred option and it does talk about it being out there in the future and so i would not be supportive of this particular o
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)